Why were ancient Egyptians White?

Question

As shown through ancient statues and figurines, among other artifacts in Egypt, it is shown that the early Egyptians were White and had White characteristics. This is also a proven fact through remains of mummies. Egypt did not fall until they mixed with the Nubians. This is also the reason why Egyptians today are darker in color.
The question: Through biogeography and evolution, why is it that the early Egyptians were White?

Answer 1

Some theorists believe that ruling house of Egypt was descended from the survivors of Atlantis. The Atlantians were supposedly fair skinned and had great skill at oceanic navigation. This lead some to believe the link to the Atlantians was true because of the funeral ships buried with the Pharaohs. These boats were also used on the Nile, also called the river of Life, so it's hard to decipher the truth about the burial of boats in the tombs.
The ancient Egyptians were also know to bleach their skins and dye their hair. Men as well as women wore makeup, especially for ceremonial gatherings. With the influences of the Greeks, Persians and even the Romans, It is sometimes hard to sift through the history to track the exact roots of Egypt.

Answer 2

That's an excessively simplistic and laughably false classification. The Egyptians were then as they are now, middle easterners. Egypt had close if not always friendly ties to the Sumerians, Babylonians Assyrians etc.

Egypt fell more than once because it had what was basically a one horse economy that either hung or fell on the Nile's annual flood. With such a precarious fiscal base egypt required careful governance, which was not always forthcoming from it's absolute rulers.

Once a nearby outside power managed to build a wider economic base Egypt's fall was inevitable.

Answer 3

No, to whoever said it, they ancient egyptians were not greek. You are confusing them with the rulers of egypt after Alexander the great.

Nevertheless, their ethnicity/race is a moot thing. Our definitions of it don't apply that far back.

But the thing about the depictions of skin color in ancient egyptian paintings and etc is that it is not a realistic representation. The color represents whether they are a man or woman, dead or alive, a god, etc.

Answer 4

From what I understood they would have looked semetic like all middle eastern people. The Ptolomies (Cleopatras family) may have been fairly caucasian because they were decended from Ptolomy who was Greek and they were super inbred.

They did seem to admire light skin culturally. Wealthy women would avoid the sun at all costs to keep a light complexion. Plus I am not sure how you can tell they were white from a lime statue.

Answer 5

Actually some Egyptologists argue that they were darker skinned.

Answer 6

ugh. white? i have never seen anybody who i would call white. think how easy it would be to get dirty. the closest humans get to being "white" is translucent and veiny

Answer 7

Because they were GREEK

Answer 8

SIMPLE .....THEY WEREN'T!!!!!!THEY WERE MULTI-ETHNIC!!!!

Answer 9

I'm posting here what is essentially the answer I give to the frequent occurence of the "Egyptians were black" questions because it the facts are equally appropriate for an "Egyptians were white" claim. (And I'm too lazy to re-type an entirely original answer...)

The executive summary: They were neither "white" nor "black" - they were Egyptian.

And Egypt "fell" several times before "mixing" with Nubians. They're called the Intermediate Periods and there were 2 of them before the brief period of Kushite (Nubian) rule in Egypt during the 25th Dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period. While the First Intermediate Period was characterized by a fragmentation of central government into several power centers, the Second Intermediate period was characterized by the rule of most of the northern portion of Egypt by the Hyksos - people of Asiatic origin who were eventually driven out by the Theban 17th Dynasty who then re-united the country. The Kushites 25th Dynasty actually brought about a brief renaissance in Egyptian culture, as they went back to earlier phases of Egyptian history for models of their own artwork and were, in many ways, almost more "Egyptian than the Egyptians" in the way the presented themselves as rightful rulers of Egypt after re-uniting the country from the fragmented petty-kingdoms that had arisen after the fall of the last Ramessid kings. The Kushites retreated to Nubia following the Assyrian invasion. Eventually a "native" Egyptian dynasty came to power again, but lasted only briefly. Following that there was a long line of Persians, Macedonians, and Romans who were called "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" before the final collapse.

Now, on to the rest of the answer:
There was a great range of physical appearances in ancient Egypt, much like there is in modern Egypt as the general physical characteristics have probably not changed all that greatly - there have been new population groups introduced, but most scholars feel that their influence has been fairly small and gradual and new population groups have been moving through Egypt since humans first arrived there.

The ancient Egyptians were African, as Egypt is in Africa. "African" is frequently conflated with "black" especially in the US and Europe, despite the vast range of physical appearance, including skin tones and facial features among various indigenous African groups. The ancient Egyptians had a variety of skin tones, roughly similar to those seen in Egypt today - that is, ranging from relatively light skinned/tan to very dark skinned, with hair that is straight, curly or very curly, noses that range in shape and eyes that are brown, blue, grey, or green. This is a standard phenotype for most North Africans.

It might be worth noting that many modern Egyptians are offended if called "black" - yet another complicated aspect of racial and ethnic categories and the way they shift meanings from context to context.

There was population movement into Egypt despite it's relative isolation from both father south in Africa and from western Asia that contributed in a slight way to the external physical characteristics of the general population. Most scholars characterize these populations movements as essentially "drops in the bucket" of the broader population.

Ancient Egyptian art had certain conventions for depicting Egyptians as well as other population groups. Egyptian males are typically shown as red or reddish brown, women in a yellowish shade, Nubians as black, and Asiatics as yellow. This may not have always reflected the reality of individual appearance as most of these depictions were not intended as portraits.

It's important to realize that most scholars in history and anthropology no longer consider race to be a reality in a genetic sense. Rather, we consider race to be a cultural construction and the definitions of race vary from culture to culture and context to context.

In the various reenactments of historic events in ancient Egypt that are shown in recent documentaries the majority of the actors are Egyptian. I've seen some these being filmed while I was in the field - Egyptian actors are less expensive to hire and filming costs are cut down by filming on-site in Egypt.

The majority of Egyptologists, anthropologists and historians will tell you that despite the Arab Conquest, modern Egyptians don't look all that different from ancient Egyptians, especially outside Cairo. It's important to note that most of the Arabs and other Muslims who migrated into Egypt following the conquest tended (with exceptions, of course) to reside primarily around Cairo and to remain fairly exclusive in their marriage habits.

The confusion over race comes in because of the history of the disciplines of Egyptology, anthropology, and history, the history of European colonialism, and the history of the rise of Afrocentrism.

In the early days of Egyptology western thought was that white Europeans were superior to all other "races" and therefore a civilization like Egypt could not have arisen out of a black African "race" - a race that, for social and political (eg colonialism) reasons was considered inferior to that of Europeans (and especially northern Europeans). This lead to theories such as the "Dynastic Race" - an idea that the Egyptian state arose after the invasion of a separate race of people from Western Asia who subjugated the native Egyptians and became the ruling class, though they eventually intermarried with the "natives". This also nicely explained the features of Egyptians as shown in various ancient depictions which weren't stereotypically "black" but weren't stereotypically "white European" either.
This theory is no longer popularly accepted - nor should it be, though it has been embraced by a number of White Supremacist groups. Archaeological evidence does not support it, nor do most studies of human remains from the pertinent period of Egyptian history, though ascertaining "race" from skeletal remains has its own problems. Essentially, "race" as determined from skeletal remains is more of a continuum - as in, this skeleton shows a series of features, usually cranial features, that tend to stereotypically "*******," "Caucasian," etc. (The terms are still used by many physical anthropologists, especially those working forensic cases, thus adding to the confusion of race and what it means.) You can come close, but it's not exact, and it's not going to tell you eye color, skin tone, or hair type - the phenotypic features that most cultures rely upon to define "race."

In reaction to ideas like the "Dynastic Race Theory" and with the rise of the black pride movement, the civil rights movement and other social/political movements, certain members of the black community, especially in the US, have argued that the Egyptians were "black" which they usually define, at least in the US as looking like the majority of black Americans. In some of its most extreme forms, this movement has suggested that Europeans deliberately changed or defaced monuments to hide the "African" features of ancient Egyptians (which is totally ridiculous) and they tend to point to evidence of Egyptian "blackness" that is not really valid within the broader scholarly understanding of ancient Egypt.

Evidence of "whiteness" is as difficult to demonstrate unless, again, you pick and choose evidence very carefully and discard everything that argues against the thesis of Egyptian "whiteness." As noted earlier, the Egyptians themselves had their own system of distinguising phenotypic differences. There was also a range of appearances, making it difficult to establish "race" as it is defined by modern people. (And for that matter which cultural definition of race do we use? From which time period? From which country?)

The big problem with this movement and the claiming of Egypt by black pride movements is that it ignores the points of origin of most African Americans - slaves were derived primarily from sub-Saharan Africa, some distance from Egypt and in areas the had little or no contact with ancient Egypt. It also tends to treat Africa as though it is one huge cultural unit, disregarding the vast amount of diversity and individuality of various African cultures. It also tends to shortchange and direct attention away from other amazing African cultures, such as the cultural group associated with the amazing constructions at Great Zimbabwe.
By the same token claiming Egypt as a European achievement is equally problematic. While certainly a cornerstone of the broader history of "Western civilization" Egypt is equally a corner stone of the broader history of the world and the broader history of African and Middle Eastern civilzation.
Overall, the primarily problem with the Afrocentrism movement is that it tends not to meet the rigorous requirements of modern scholastic practice and that those who argue against their theories are accused of being racist, white supremacists, or of being part of a vast conspiracy to claim Egypt as a white culture. In other words, the proponents of Afrocentrism rely on ad hominem personal attacks on those they disagree with, rather than addressing their arguments.
The same can be said of white-supremicist driven theories regarding the race/ethnicity of ancient Egyptians. The fact that they are offensive is not sufficient to dispel them. The fact that they are unsupported by a full accounting of the evidence available does dispel them.
In essence, its wise to be suspicious of any theory obviously driven by a clear socio-political ideology. This is not to say that such theories are worthless, but manipulation of evidence ("cherry-picking" as so many people call it) to support such ideologies is hardly a new thing - the ancient Egyptians themselves did it.

As a scholar, I don't think the Egyptians were white, but I don't think that they were "black" in the common usage either - I think that they were Egyptian. I think, based on evidence from their own texts, artistic representations, etc., that they defined themselves as "Egyptian" in opposition to other groups. I don't think that you can apply modern categories with their own baggage to the past and I don't think that it serves any worthwhile purpose to "claim" an ancient cultural group as one's own without a wealth of evidence. I study ancient Egypt because I find it interesting, not because I feel that I need to support a modern social-political ideology and to be frank, at times I get a little tired of the ongoing arguing because I think that it distracts from the really interesting parts of Egyptian culture and because I don't think it should matter what box on a census form an ancient Egyptian would check. I say again, they were Egyptian - and that's all that should matter.

This is not to deny that there have been any number of theories, suggestions, hypotheses, and reconstructions put forth by Egyptologists in the 200 years of the existence of the discipline that most modern people would find reprehensible. But what must be remembered is that those scholars were a product of their times and a product of the social, political, historical context around them. They interpreted the evidence they had available to them in the way that made sense to them.
When additional evidence became available and/or when scholarly understanding of the nature of humans, race, ethnicity, etc., changed, so have the interpretations made. In essence, we are all doing the best job we can with the tools we have available.